A Socialist City was an independent, enclosed residential formation under an industrial enterprise and had a regular size for a fixed number of populations according to the number of jobs at the factory. Agrarian and any other non-industrial functional purposes of a social city were excluded. (Meerovich 2009).
Appearing as an idea in the post-revolutionary period, the socialist city has already emerged outside of private land ownership. One of this morphotype's critical difficulties and contradictions lies in the vast difference between socialist cities as an idea and a socialist city as an implementation. Conceived as an ideal planned city for workers, it was never realized in this vein. On the one hand, the calculations of the population did not keep pace with reality, and the plan quickly became outdated. On the other hand, the provision of regular housing, according to Khmelnitsky D., was not at all included in the plans of the Soviet state during this period. Hence, many of the socialist cities consisted of barracks and dugouts. And only a tiny part of the quarters was made of stone.
The "Socialist City" combines morphotypes strictly subordinated to a "functional city''. In addition, the planning units of such a city are hierarchically subordinated to each other. The layout of the sotsgorod quite clearly divides the entire space into different functions, residential, working and serving. An analysis of competition tasks for the design of a social city (1929-1930, conducted by M. Meerovich, Khmelnytskyi, Konysheva) shows that in all programs, there were two key goals: "the complete socialization of the life of a residential commune, as well as a centralized system of cultural services (palaces of culture, an educational complex, a park of culture and recreation with the stadium, etc.).
